MEWA SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the present writ petition challenge is thrown to the order dated September 14, 2017 (Annexure P-9) passed by the District Collector, Bamala and the order dated October 15, 2019 (Annexure P-10) passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Patiala, District Patiala.

(2.) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the land ad-measuring 01 Kanai 13 Marlas having Khewat, Khatoni or Khasra Number:- Share 33/898 vide 1 Kanai 13 Marlas out of land measuring 44K-18M comprised in Khata No.59/86 to 89, Khasra NO.421//9/8-0, 422//17/2/0-8, 421//2/7-7, 12 min/0-10, 438//1/0-4, 2/0-9, 439//2/4-2, 421//12 min/7-10, 422/17/2 min /5-0, 21/2/3-8, 22/8-0 kitte 11 situate at Bamala (C), Tehsil and District Bamala was purchased by the petitioner. The petitioner paid Rs.4,12,500.00 as consideration amount and also paid stamp duty of Rs.33,000.00 on the same. The District Revenue Officer (DRO), Bamala had certified the said land to be "agricultural" as it was found on spot inspection that crops were sown on the land. The DROs written communication to the District Collector is dated September 16, 2016 (Annexure P-5).

(3.) The said inspection was done during the pendency of the proceedings under Sec. 47(A) of Indian Stamp Act for recovery of additional stamp duty by the District Collector. Such proceedings were instituted on March 27, 2014. Vide order dated February 16, 2017 the District Collector-respondent No.3 recorded that after perusal of the reports dated January 23, 2016 submitted by the Divisional Magistrate, Bamala and the report dated September 16, 2016 by the DRO, an order was being passed for recovery of additional stamp duty to the tune of Rs.1,25,400.00, registration fees to the tune of Rs.15,675.00 i.e. (total) Rs.1,41,075.00 from the petitioner. The District Collector sought to rely on the earlier Report of the SDM without considering the later report of the DRO, who admittedly is a higher official. The said order was challenged before the Divisional Commissioner, Patiala - respondent No.2. The impugned order dated February 16, 2017 was set aside vide order dated April 26, 2017 (Annexure P-7) passed by the respondent No.2. The District Collector was directed to hear the case of the appellant again by giving him an opportunity of hearing.